Satanism and Freemasonry.

[Albion]

If the dare is pointless, so is the oath.

Wrong again, Rick.

 

[Rick Otto]

Because you say so.
Silly me.

 

[Albion]

Well, I'm the one with actual knowledge of the subject.

 

[DavidFirth]

I was asked to be a mason. I learned that masons believe only that every mason believe in a Supreme Being. I can't do that. I believe in Christ as the Son of God and every god out there others believe in is just another manifestation of Satan.

 

[Albion]

I was asked to be a mason. I learned that masons believe only that every mason believe in a Supreme Being. I can't do that. I believe in Christ as the Son of God and every god out there others believe in is just another manifestation of Satan.

But Masons are not asked to believe ONLY that there is but one God.

Most Masons believe in Christ as the Son of God, just as you said, and that other gods believed in by other people are false gods, do not exist, etc. That includes your belief that they are manifestations of Satan.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, I'm the one with actual knowledge of the subject.

Yes. A self proclaimed authority.

 

[Hieronymus]

Satanists like to think that Masonry started as a Satanic movement, I take it. What other religious or philosophical movements in history do they likewise say were started by them?

Theosophy = Luciferianism basically.
It spawned the new age thinking, which is usually the version for 'the uninitiate', and leads to One World Communism eventually.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, I'm the one with actual knowledge of the subject.

Incriminating comment, because we're not allowed to flame or goad.

 

[Rick Otto]

.

 

[Hieronymus]

.

 

[DavidFirth]

But Masons are not asked to believe ONLY that there is but one God.

Most Masons believe in Christ as the Son of God, just as you said, and that other gods believed in by other people are false gods, do not exist, etc. That includes your belief that they are manifestations of Satan.

But in calling such non-Christian masons your brothers you sin against Christ. This is wrong. There is no seat at Christ's table for demons and demon worshippers.

 

[Hieronymus]

Most Masons believe in Christ as the Son of God, just as you said,

So do most gnostics.

 

[DavidFirth]

But Masons are not asked to believe ONLY that there is but one God.

Most Masons believe in Christ as the Son of God, just as you said, and that other gods believed in by other people are false gods, do not exist, etc. That includes your belief that they are manifestations of Satan.

"Most masons" doesn't cut it. All Christians go to heaven. All masons do not.

 

[Albion]

Yes. A self proclaimed authority.

Not so, and I' m sure that you knew what was meant by that. I have experienced what we're talking about...whereas you only have heard rumors and probably have believed some of those "expose" websites as well.

 

[Albion]

So do most gnostics.

Let's talk about Gnostics, then, if that's your wish.

 

[Rick Otto]

There are few societies that freerer and more open in practice than Masonry, and most people understand that Masonry is not actually an example of a "secret society" merely because members promise not to divulge--themselves, that is--a few passwords or phrases, etc.

You can find almost everything online or on TV for yourself, if truth be told, much of which comes from Masonic sources, given in the interest of dispelling the silly myths that have been propagated against Masonry. Just try finding what goes on in the meetings of the Knights of Columbus or any college fraternity, if you really are interested in openness, and see how little you get!

What's more, there is nothing that would strike the onlooker as deserving of being kept secret if it were to be divulged--except that it's a token of one's commitment and sincerity to keep a trust. I certainly do not think that a member has any need to respond to a pointless dare, even if the material in question were not private.

Two things:
This is a conspiracy forum.
If you have a basic problem with conspiracy theory you should air it.
You seem not to understand the theory on this one.
The vast majority of masons are not involved and are unaware of the evil in their high places so of course it is dismissed as silly myth.

Secondly, a basic rule re: conspiracy is that they don't reveal themselves on TV. In fact, they use TV to spread silly myths about what good they are.
So perhaps you now can fathom the term "open secret" on the one hand and "need to know" compartmentalization on the other.

 

[Albion]

Two things:
This is a conspiracy forum.
If you have a basic problem with conspiracy theory you should air it.

I've aired it. This particular conspiracy theory doesn't have any facts behind it. Some do, but this one doesn't. In fact, one of several issues that has come up isn't even a conspiracy theory, yet here you are. I am referring to whether or not a Christian should take an oath. That's a theological issue and one that's a matter of interpreting scripture, not about some conspiracy.

You seem not to understand the theory on this one.
The vast majority of masons are not involved and are unaware of the evil in their high places so of course it is dismissed as silly myth.

Well, you cannot be aware of something that doesn't exist, can you?

 

[Rick Otto]

I've aired it. This particular conspiracy theory doesn't have any facts behind it. Some do, but this one doesn't. In fact, one of several issues that has come up isn't even a conspiracy theory, yet here you are. I am referring to whether or not a Christian should take an oath. That's a theological issue and one that's a matter of interpreting scripture, not about some conspiracy.



Well, you cannot be aware of something that doesn't exist, can you?

Depends on how you define "exist".
I see how you denied any facts about it without substantiation.
As usual, not impressed.
Some conspiracies are actually ABOUT the interpretation of scripture, yet here you are, asserting some kind of compartmentalization that supposedly affirms non-relevance.
How convenient.

 

[Albion]

Depends on how you define "exist".
I see how you denied any facts about it without substantiation.

That's right. You have no substantiation, and we all know that it's impossible to disprove a negative.

 

[Rick Otto]

That's right. You have no substantiation, and we all know that it's impossible to disprove a negative.

"you are, asserting some kind of compartmentalization that supposedly affirms non-relevance."
Not a negative.
Props on your talent for misdirection.
Not so much on your standards of evidence.